Page 85 - Tzurba M'Rabanan Volume1
P. 85

ןנברמ אברוצ                                                     ׳ב הרז הדובע תוכלה · 83


        of charity. Such true altruism certainly has great  distinction of the  Shenot Chayim. However, he
        merit and would prolong the exile. Hence, it is  proves that Tosafot clearly does not make such
                                                             20
        forbidden to accept such charity even in private.  a distinction.  Rav Kook says that since none of
        The sugya in Sanhedrin on the other hand is refer-  the Rishonim mentioned such a distinction, we
        ring to receiving charity after there was a request  have to assume that it is erroneous.
        from the poor. Based on this distinction, the Bin-  Perhaps we can defend the opinion of the She-
        yan Tzion permitted Jewish organizations to re-  not Chayim by answering at least some of the
        ceive funds from non-Jews, given for the purpose   questions of the Zera Emet, and find a basis for
        of helping the Jewish community in pre-state Is-  this opinion in Rashi.
        rael, as the funds came in response to advertise-  Regarding the logic of distinguishing between
        ments describing the great need and plight in the   the royal family and regular gentiles, one could
        Holy Land.                                argue that, since there is no din of areivut (mu-
          Rav Yishmael HaKohen of Modena in his   tual responsibility) for gentiles, the merit of one
        responsa Zera Emet  quotes a different distinc-  non-Jew does not necessarily impact on anoth-
                         19
        tion made by the Shenot Chayim. The Gemara in   er.  Therefore, if a non-Jew does a great act of
                                                    21
        Bava Batra was referring specifically to receiving   kindness, it should not give the royal family more
        charity from the royal family who reigned at the   merits and extend their rule. But if the royal fam-
        time. This would certainly give the ruling family   ily themselves act in such a manner; they will
        great merit and prolong the exile, and that is why   merit an extension of their rule due to the right-
        it was forbidden to accept even in private (unless   eousness of their own actions.
        there is a fear of enmity from the government,   This distinction could be consistent with the
        and even then the money is divided among the   opinion  of  Rashi,  as  we  saw  above.  The  only
        non-Jewish poor). However, the Gemara in San-  question though is whether this is actually con-
        hedrin discusses receiving money from a regular   sidered prolonging the exile. The Shenot Chayim
        gentile. In that case, there is no concern that the   suggests that this only occurs when the merits
        merit of giving charity will prolong the exile, only   are given to the royal family which would then
        a concern of chillul Hashem or having no sense of   extend their reign.
        self-respect. These problems only apply in public   Although the Zera Emet rejected the explana-
        but not in private.                       tion of the Shenot Chayim, and Rav Kook simi-
          The  Zera Emet rejects this opinion for two   larly felt that no Rishon made such a distinction,
        reasons. First, he found no logic to distinguish   based on what we have explained, there seems
        between the merits of a regular gentile and the   to be a strong argument for the Shenot Chayim’s
        royal family. Either way, it would seemingly pro-  logic, and one could find a strong basis for it in
        long the exile. Second, the Rambam in his for-  Rashi’s opinion.
        mulation of the prohibition (Hilchot Melachim
        10:10) seems to prohibit receiving money from  Other Acharonim
        a regular gentile as well. Rav Avraham Yitzchak  Up until now we have seen many Acharonim that
        HaKohen Kook (Responsa Daat Kohen, Yoreh  accepted the claim of the Derisha that there is a
        Deah 132) also mentions the possibility of this  seeming contradiction between the Gemara in
        19.   Responsa Zera Emet 112
        20.   Tosafot, Arachin 6b ask how the Gemara there, which brings a story of a certain gentile who donated something to a shul and Rabbi Meir accepted
           it, doesn’t contradict the Gemara in Bava Batra. If the distinction of the Shenot Chayim is correct, Tosafot would not have asked the question.
        21.   I found a hint to this in the Shevet HaLevi 2:126, although he doesn’t mention the notion of areivut explicitly.


                  This volume is not to be distributed.  Copies are for the personal use of purchaser only.
   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90